So next time we interview someone about a breakthrough in medicine, we should get the opposing view and interview a witchdoctor as well. Perhaps we can balance out the reporting about the new mars-mission by getting the opposing view of flat-earthers. All interviews that have anything to do with the NAACP should also include the views of the Grand Imperial Dragon of the KKK, and whenever we air any view expressed by NASA we should certainly get the point of view of moon-landing conspiracy theorists.

So next time we interview someone about a breakthrough in medicine, we should get the opposing view and interview a witchdoctor as well. Perhaps we can balance out the reporting about the new mars-mission by getting the opposing view of flat-earthers. All interviews that have anything to do with the NAACP should also include the views of the Grand Imperial Dragon of the KKK, and whenever we air any view expressed by NASA we should certainly get the point of view of moon-landing conspiracy theorists.

I am currently available as a television pundit to provide opposing views on topics such as untimely deaths and natural disasters.

Basically, I will come on your show in a goatee and a black turtleneck shirt, and explain that what are bitter tears to your palate are sweet nectar to mine.

So next time we interview someone about a breakthrough in medicine, we should get the opposing view and interview a witchdoctor as well. Perhaps we can balance out the reporting about the new mars-mission by getting the opposing view of flat-earthers. All interviews that have anything to do with the NAACP should also include the views of the Grand Imperial Dragon of the KKK, and whenever we air any view expressed by NASA we should certainly get the point of view of moon-landing conspiracy theorists.

I am currently available as a television pundit to provide opposing views on topics such as untimely deaths and natural disasters.

Basically, I will come on your show in a goatee and a black turtleneck shirt, and explain that what are bitter tears to your palate are sweet nectar to mine.

You know those people in Japan that died in the tsunami. Godless.
New Orleans. Godless.
Hundreds of thousands in 2005 tsunami. Muslims and some Godless.
Tornadoes in Missouri. Godless Meth Addicts and some collateral damage.

__________________
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the night. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

Yay for you Merkins. Over here the trend is still going the other way, with right wing populist xenophobe extraordinaire Geert Wilders playing the sensasionalist media like a violin and the 'serious' media terrified of being finger-pointed as belonging to the 'leftwing church'.

I'm not holding my breath just yet. Our own home-grown right-wingers have proved most adept at playing the media.

Even if NPR makes good on its pledge and sticks to its guns -- and that's a big "if," in my opinion -- they represent a pretty small percentage of our media. It's a pretty non-representative subset of the U.S. population that listens to NPR. News outlets like Fox and CNN have far more viewers/listeners, and are far more influential. And I don't foresee CNN or -- God forbid -- Fox ever adopting such a policy.

It will be interesting to see if NPR follows through. I hope this means they will stop quoting anonymous government sources spouting propaganda/ official positions- as if that required anonymity. Or that they even actually call torture- performed by the US- torture, rather than "enhanced interrogation" or some other doublespeak. If it is torture when the Khmer Rouge do it, I'm pretty sure it is torture when the US does it.

Or even provide some context to their notoriously context-free reporting.

So next time we interview someone about a breakthrough in medicine, we should get the opposing view and interview a witchdoctor as well. Perhaps we can balance out the reporting about the new mars-mission by getting the opposing view of flat-earthers. All interviews that have anything to do with the NAACP should also include the views of the Grand Imperial Dragon of the KKK, and whenever we air any view expressed by NASA we should certainly get the point of view of moon-landing conspiracy theorists.

I am a skeptic, said the first scientist. I demand convincing evidence before I make an assertion. But I believe I can identify that bird, beyond all reasonable doubt, as a duck. The journalist nodded silently at this assertion.
I also am a skeptic, said the second, but evidently of a more refined sort, for I demand a much higher standard of evidence than you do. I see no irrefutable evidence to back up your assertion that this object before us is even a bird, let alone positively identifying it as a duck. The journalist raised his eyebrow sagely.

__________________Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant

Yay for you Merkins. Over here the trend is still going the other way, with right wing populist xenophobe extraordinaire Geert Wilders playing the sensasionalist media like a violin and the 'serious' media terrified of being finger-pointed as belonging to the 'leftwing church'.

I'm not holding my breath just yet. Our own home-grown right-wingers have proved most adept at playing the media.

Even if NPR makes good on its pledge and sticks to its guns -- and that's a big "if," in my opinion -- they represent a pretty small percentage of our media. It's a pretty non-representative subset of the U.S. population that listens to NPR. News outlets like Fox and CNN have far more viewers/listeners, and are far more influential. And I don't foresee CNN or -- God forbid -- Fox ever adopting such a policy.

Let's give Fox news due credit. They never try to report both sides of a controversy with anything approaching fairness or balance.

__________________Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.

So NPR just updated their journalism standards, and the most significant change was that they're no longer going to practice that 'two sides' type of journalism where they present opposing opinions equally, regardless of the credibility of the arguments.

I especially like the part where the site is overloaded with people who are apparently pretty excited about it.

In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance and clarity. Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth.

and….

At all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information they give us, we tell our audience. If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and represented fairly.

With these words, NPR commits itself as an organization to avoid the worst excesses of “he said, she said” journalism. It says to itself that a report characterized by false balance is a false report. It introduces a new and potentially powerful concept of fairness: being “fair to the truth,” which as we know is not always evenly distributed among the sides in a public dispute.

Maintaining the “appearance of balance” isn’t good enough, NPR says. “If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side…” we have to say so. When we are spun, we don’t just report it. “We tell our audience…” This is spin!

Here's the Kos coverage, with a link to a 'thank you' petition you can sign to show support.

It is well worth listening to this 4-minute NPR story from this morning (embedded below) on the grave and growing menace of “state-sponsored Terrorism” from Iran. NPR national security reporter Dina Temple-Raston does what she (and NPR reporters generally) typically do: gathers a couple of current and former government officials (with an agreeable establishment think-tank expert thrown in the mix), uncritically airs what they say, and then repeats it herself.

The article goes on to detail how the news report leaves out any context on Iran regarding the numerous attacks against Iran propagated or originated by the US, Israel, or the terrorist groups we sponsor.

Quote:

There’s one prime reason why Americans are so uninformed about what their government does in their name around the world (Why do they hate us?). It’s because “news stories” from “even liberal media outlets” like NPR systematically obscure those facts, disseminating pure propaganda from America’s National Security State masquerading as high-minded, Serious news.

So I think NPR is still struggling to meet these challenges. I especially think this when I listen to stories about North Korea for example, like at On The Media:

Quote:

Earlier in the week, the U.S. government had expressed its concern that reporters might be playing into North Korea’s hands. A spokesperson from the National Security Council told Politico that, quote, “Reporters have to be careful not to get co-opted. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know this is a propaganda exercise.

I like the irony of an NPR program reporting on the US government warning reporters to not get co-opted. Because you know, embedding US reporters in the US military isn't like that, nor the relationship of most of the reporters on the US national intelligence beat who get access to government intelligence officials in exchange for passing on their anonymous official propaganda as news. And also not like the Pentagon Pundit Scandal. Yep. Totally different.

Posting people's tweets is not the same thing as reporting news. In fact, it is pretty close to the opposite of that. This is some sort of double crazy Washington speculum-and-funhouse-mirror type of media navelgazing, wherein the Washington Post "reports" on reporters' tweets. If I gave a single fuck what any of these reporters have to say on Twitter,* I would fucking follow them on Twitter because that is what Twitter is for.

We had a shooting last week at a bar in Tuscaloosa, which is a college town, 17 people injured (nobody killed thankfully). The shooter has a history of violence, is apparently a (whoda thunk it?) racist, and also may have committed arson at his former workplace from which he was fired for fighting. How many people outside Alabama, or maybe the SE region heard anything about it?

Now the news is dominated by the Aurora shooting. A dozen killed. It is horrible and newsworthy and I absolutely understand it needs to be covered.

My question is why the difference in coverage? I suspect it is because of Columbine, but also I can see that injured rather than killed could make a difference. I think the most pathetic and sad scenario would be if the increased coverage is due to the location being a showing of the new Batman movie.

This guy went on preliminary reports and decided he knew the motive within hours of the event? And the newspaper decided this way too early to speculate speculation should be run very early?

Somebody seemed to realize this was insane journalism and so they changed the headline and the content a bit to add more weasel words and remove the entire sentence about wanting revenge against humanity. It also mentioned something about the guy probably being a bullying victim but that's gone now too.

Here's a screen shot, it's still cached in search results for the moment, so you guys don't think I am making shit up. In another cached description I found the sentence "he's kind of like a bullied youngster who feels humiliated and ignored and decides he can...."

I definitely saw a few stories about the Tuscaloosa shooting. IMO, the media paid too much attention to both, and to stories like that in general.

Some deranged shithead tries to get attention by murdering people, and the media's response is always to give them that attention.

I don't give a fuck what either one of those guys think. I am not interested in learning more about them or reading their manifestos. This type of information is valuable to sociologists and criminologists or something, but it's not of any import at all to the public at large, and it'd be kind of awesome if we could all just stop making murderers into celebrities.

I totally understand and empathize with the fascination with acts of evil like that, but that's a compulsion we shouldn't be indulging.

Stories like this are local news. They're significant to people who are or may have been affected directly by them. The only thing that makes them significant on a broader scale is the fact that the media makes them significant.

Well, the media has 24 hours of news to fill. What else are they going to fill it with? There are only so many beautiful blonde women murdered in any given year.

__________________
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette

So someone I know (who works for American Atheists) was going to go on FOX Business to discuss a new poll from Pew that found that "nones" (atheist, agnostic, no affiliation, etc.) are now 19% in the US, up from 6% in 1990.

They later canceled on her saying they decided to take the story in a "different direction" (and present only one side).

So someone I know (who works for American Atheists) was going to go on FOX Business to discuss a new poll from Pew that found that "nones" (atheist, agnostic, no affiliation, etc.) are now 19% in the US, up from 6% in 1990.

They later canceled on her saying they decided to take the story in a "different direction" (and present only one side).

The preacher made a comment about Holmes being described as socially inept and that the problem was lack of socialization ...which honors science student and neuroscience program! Did the stereotype of "introverted science nerd" never cross your mind? I like how they then talked about the "social media cocoon" when Holmes didn't even have a Facebook or Twitter account according to an article I read.

And what was that yammering about the nones anyway? Are most mass murderers non religious? Was Holmes? How exactly did you make that leap, Fox?